or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple in talks with cable providers over set-top box that handles live TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple in talks with cable providers over set-top box that handles live TV - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr View Post

This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market.  Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.  

That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade.  Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle.  Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor. 

have you ever owned an apple product? even if you haven't, are you *still* not yet aware that apple's goal is *always* to do things better than anyone else has previously?

every issue you cited assumes (erroneously) one thing: that an apple-branded TV would be just like every other company's TVs. you seem to forget that apple is in the business of *revolutionizing* products. every single aspect of an apple TV would have been rethought -- right down to some new and simple way to affix it to one's wall. apple's goal would be to eliminate *everything* that you currently consider to be a hassle.

everything you mentioned is true *only* for TVs as we already know them. by your logic, apple should have stayed out of the mobile-phone space, as well. because -- you know -- "phones suck. let other companies fight over that stuff." :-)
post #42 of 80

Apple needs to skip the studios AND cable providers and use some of that cash to buy distribution rights for live sports. I feel like sports is what keeps a huge percentage of people plugged into cable, and large media corporations are far too invested in the current cable dynamic to have any incentive to change it. 

 

I'd take a set-top box too, but if apple got me the NFL and NBA, I'd never pay a cable company another dime outside of internet access. Looks like rights cost a few billion a year for the NFL, I'm sure much less for the NBA. They have $100B in cash, and would make a lot back on just subscription fees for each sport PLUS large margins on the set-top box or TV. Plus they could figure out a way to monetize advertising in a less intrusive but profitable way and take a cut of PPV and and other subscription apps like HBO Go etc. 

post #43 of 80
If all this is, is an Apple branded set top box that you'd get with Timr Warner or Comcast or whatever then big yawn. Especially for those of us who have satellite or those who cut the cord and don't have cable.
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99 View Post

Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.

 

Replacing the Cable Box with an Apple TV Styled "Tivo" is a good interim step.  ANYTHING would be better than the cable boxes.  And keeping it out of the TV means you don't have to worry about all of the negatives of an Apple branded Television.

 

The up front cost isn't an issue for me, but I hate the $15/mo or whatever for the "privilege" of being able to time-shift their content...

My opinion is that we may see a "Apple TV" that's one really big IPS panel. But unlike the iMac may have a remove able AppleTV module connected via a single display-port, and it's this separate module that all the i/o connects to. It makes the entire "remove the TV from the wall, reach-around-blindly" problem go away. Most of us already have one of these boxes, they're usually the surround-sound system, and these boxes all suck. So the better Apple TV module would consist of all the digital i/o, with adapters for analog i/o. I some how doubt Apple would make a surround-sound box, but existing boxes are these huge mostly-empty boxes, that most of the circuitry is dedicated to just switching analog paths (you can hear relays switch.) If you've ever seen the Xbox surround system, there's an example of how it can be made simpler. Tiny "Apple TV" sized box that the i/o connects to, one cable that runs to the sub-woofer where all the power supply and speaker distribution is dealt with.

 

What I really want to see is everything on demand. Forget "owning" or "licensing" or "renting" , if a TV show has been produced, it will have a "broadcast availability time", eg 9pm Eastern, and at that point anyone around the world can connect to the local edge node and watch it live, or if they miss it, they can start the stream from the beginning. This would utilize in-stream advertisement tokens (that tell the device to load an "advertisement" stream and return to that time point of the stream, which is what most of the "web" streams do anyway. Watchers who want to watch an entire show whenever, simply click a "subscribe" button, and the box will download the stream appropriate for the size of television as soon as it's available for whatever fee applies to that program. So if you record the live stream, you still have to watch the advertisements. If you pay the fee you get to watch/download it advertisement-free. If 30 years later you discover this box in your storage ,you should still be able to play back anything stored on it.

post #45 of 80
Look at it another way..

Imagine apple going to the major cable systems and telling them 'By offering your cable package under iOS you'd be able to utilize 'our' data centers as distribution points and in return you'll have no exclusive rights to sell your cable packages to the entire US market.'

Now think on that for a minute.... Cablevision being able to sell to markets well outside the telephone polls they have wire hung from.

Dish or directtv being able to sell to customers without the costly upfront hardware and installation costs.

Time Warner & Comcast have similar benefits... Tho given their larger customer base the benefits aren't as great.

The big obstacles would be providing locals as needed as per the FCC ... However, dish and directtv have that stuff all worked out and Apple could offer them a sweeter deal in return for the expertise they bring to the table.

All apple needs is for one or two to get on board and the rest would be all but forced to join in or say goodbye to their customer base. Imagine what happens once ALL the cable providers are in direct competition with each other?

Finally, this will do more to light a fire under content owners to peruse the idea of selling direct to the consumer.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!

I know, I didn't phrase that very well did I? I meant my comment in the sense of future products.... on demand is surely the future so an Apple device that's not yet here should look to the future not the past. Kind of like dropping floppies, CDs and DVD players before anyone else. DVR seems to me like something from those fun days of Tivo way back when in the early part of the century. /wink
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #47 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinneal View Post

As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well

There are probably many, many tiny little places on Earth with their own obscure TV systems but Apple have to look to support the main, serious systems ... /kidding
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

If all this is, is an Apple branded set top box that you'd get with Timr Warner or Comcast or whatever then big yawn. Especially for those of us who have satellite or those who cut the cord and don't have cable.

 

There is a big difference between a classic Cable box and an Apple Tv cable box which will combine the cable feed, ATSC, dvr, on demand content, apps, internet access, games, Airplay, you're own itunes purchased and library, all in a single integrated interface that may or may not respond to voice command.

 

I understand some people dont like cable, but its not Apple job to go on a vendeta to purge cable from earth. Even if they did, Apple would come up with on demand content or packages that cost the same amount of money as cable or more... on top of paying huge amounts of cash to youre internet provider over excessive bandwith.

 

With Google entering the distribution business, Apple needs to make a move with or without cable, but it as to do something to make sure the iOS ecosystem compete in the living room before Android takes over that space.  The 99$ AppleTV may be cute, but it will never be mainstream because it cant handle live feed and with the exception of a few tech geeks, people do want reliable live channels.

 

About the Google distribution initiative, on top of testing ultra fast fibe internet in Kansas city, they also bough motorola, which is a major player in IPTV cable Box.  Those box currently run on WindowsCE, how long do you think it will take Google to replace that with Android?  Google is maybe a year away from having millions of customers in the TV space through Motorola. There is a real threat for Apple here, Apple absolutly must enter that market, and it need to move fast.


Edited by herbapou - 8/16/12 at 6:45am
post #49 of 80

The problem here is that, Apple is not offering anything new here to the cable companies. If the cable companies want, they can already offer contents to let's say e.g. a Samsung Smart TV. And that's already a huge market. The cable companies simply don't want to do that. 

 

If you say well Apple should just go directly to content providers, many many companies have tried that and never gone anywhere because all the content providers already have contracts with the cable companies that bar them from selling the content in other means. Just not possible legally to do so. 

post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have to say, ever since I came to the States, 22 years ago, the story of how the cable companies hijacked the network's content and made money rebroadcasting it with their own ads and stayed out of prison has fascinated me. If Apple can work directly with the actual content providers it might be sweet revenge.

 

 

Hijacked?  Prison?  Revenge?  Uh, OK.  Perspective.  It's important.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?

 

I don't know about you, but with my FiOS TV there is a whole lot that is not On Demand.  Same with Comcast.  I use my DVR quite a bit, as I suspect most people do.  The point is that an Apple TV needs to replace both my current TV and the cable box.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinneal View Post

As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well

same in the USA but most people pay over $100 for cable TV/internet. the over the air broadcasts are so so quality

post #52 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

The problem here is that, Apple is not offering anything new here to the cable companies. If the cable companies want, they can already offer contents to let's say e.g. a Samsung Smart TV.

 

If you say well Apple should just go directly to content providers, many many companies have tried that and never gone anywhere because all the content providers already have contracts with the cable companies that bar them from selling the content in other means. Just not possible legally to do so. 

 

They offer an ecosystem. People love ecosystems that integrates everything, Android will soon be in the living room through Motorola.  Samsung smart Tv's is like the 99$ Apple Tv, it 's cute. The real game is going to be an ecosystem war in the TV distribution space and its about to start.

 

You are spot on about content providers. I will add that cable companies also own many content providers, which makes it even more complex.

post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Look at it another way..
Imagine apple going to the major cable systems and telling them 'By offering your cable package under iOS you'd be able to utilize 'our' data centers as distribution points and in return you'll have no exclusive rights to sell your cable packages to the entire US market.'
Now think on that for a minute.... Cablevision being able to sell to markets well outside the telephone polls they have wire hung from.
Dish or directtv being able to sell to customers without the costly upfront hardware and installation costs.
Time Warner & Comcast have similar benefits... Tho given their larger customer base the benefits aren't as great.
The big obstacles would be providing locals as needed as per the FCC ... However, dish and directtv have that stuff all worked out and Apple could offer them a sweeter deal in return for the expertise they bring to the table.
All apple needs is for one or two to get on board and the rest would be all but forced to join in or say goodbye to their customer base. Imagine what happens once ALL the cable providers are in direct competition with each other?
Finally, this will do more to light a fire under content owners to peruse the idea of selling direct to the consumer.

 

 

Offering reliable live channels to a large client base through the internet using lets say youre local internet provider is not technicly possible at this time. Maybe with h.265 codec , advances in live peer to peer distribution model and faster home internet connections this could be achieve in 5 years at the earliest.

post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Hijacked?  Prison?  Revenge?  Uh, OK.  Perspective.  It's important.  


I don't know about you, but with my FiOS TV there is a whole lot that is not On Demand.  Same with Comcast.  I use my DVR quite a bit, as I suspect most people do.  The point is that an Apple TV needs to replace both my current TV and the cable box.  

DVR- That's the problem with blogs isn't it? Yep, I replied to the same criticism later in the thread and explain myself better. Re the Cable - from what I read (I wasn't here then) in the beginning the cable companies intercepted the transmissions from the then three Networks and then piped it to consumers over cables. The original ads were replaced with their own and they didn't pay the Networks for the content. If this is wrong I'm happy to be educated on the subject.
Edited by digitalclips - 8/16/12 at 7:27am
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

the over the air broadcasts are so so quality

 

 

This isn't true anymore.  Since the switch to digital, OTA is the best picture quality available.  There is little to no compression.

post #56 of 80

What has never been mentioned is that the switch to digital OTA free'd up a lot of bandwidth.  It is possible right now to transmit 100s of digital HDTV channels over the air.  Good thing for the cable companies that our Gov. let them buy content providers so that wont ever happen.  

 

Imagine if a channel like Comedy central had a free method of distributing there channel to everyone in the U.S. with a set of $10 rabbit ears.  Wouldn't they take that to increase their viewer base and thus their ad revenue. Well technically this can happen right now.  So why wont they do it? Gov in bed with big industry, yes, but the real answer is bundling.  By keep CC on cable Viacom (parent company) can force the cable providers and consumers to pay for all of their channels.  This couldn't be more against the idea of a free market, which is what I thought this country was based on.  To be fair they all do this, Viacom is just one example.

 

Just for giggles here is the list off all Viacoms U.S. channels that, if your are a cable subscriber, you are forced to pay for:

 

Atom Entertainment, BET Networks, CMT networks, Colors, Comedy Central, GameTrailers, GoCityKids
Logo, MTV Networks, Nickelodeon networks, Palladia, ParentsConnect, Quizilla, Rhapsody, Spike TV, TV Land, VH1
 
Ridiculous
 
 
post #57 of 80

You know what? Screw 'em all. All the cablecos and telcos and Applecos can go jump in the river. Between VPNs and Slingboxes I can watch pretty much ANY live TV for very little cost.

 

So screw them and their packaged, high priced, low-value content.
 

post #58 of 80

Apple makes money by selling hardware.

Apple makes money by selling hardware.

Apple makes money by selling hardware.

Apple makes money by selling hardware.

There will be a big 'ol Apple Television in your future to replace that Sony/Mitsubishi/Samsung or whatever it is you have right now.

 

Apple doesn't need to reinvent television content redistribution just like it didn't need to reinvent cell service with the iPhone.  You still have the same sucky cell service with your iPhone as you did with whatever other non-apple phone you had before it.  What the iPhone did was allow you to do a lot of really kick ass stuff with your phone IN ADDITION TO making phone calls.  An Apple Television will do the same.  It will allow you to do a lot of kick-ass stuff in addition to watching TV.  Since there's been a lot of talk about sports in this thread, here's an example:

 

Let's say you're watching a pre-season Broncos game and, while still stuck to your couch, you say "Siri, pause the game and tell me how it's looking for Peyton Manning to start the first regular-season game.  How's his neck been feeling?"  Boom, the game pauses, Siri gets the info, and then tells you the results and says, "would you like to read the most recent relevant article?" and then the web is on your TV and you can read all about it (or have Siri read it to you).  Or, you're still stuck to the couch watching that game and you say "Siri, call the closest Domino's Pizza for me" and then your TV talks to your iPhone via wifi or bluetooth and automatically dials it for you and you're still sitting on the couch having done nothing but talk. 

 

And because you have an Apple Television in your house that does apps with iOS, the video game console market just got eradicated.  This will be way, way more powerful than an iPad playing games on your TV with Airplay. See ya, Playstation.  Xbox, you now have a real competitor.

 

And other apps on an Apple Television....well that's just too long of a reply to even dig into how that will revolutionize TV.  Let's just say that if you've seen the movie Minority Report and remember how Tom Cruise walks into his house and "tells his house" to turn on the lights, etc?  That's what Siri will be doing for you in the not-too-distant future when she's the hub of your home as your television.  "Siri, I'm cold, turn up the heat in here."  "Siri, preheat the oven to 450 degrees."  "Siri, why was my electricity bill so high this month?" (as Siri checks the amp draw in all your outlets because the public utility company is all too happy to offer an app and some basic hardware to help you monitor it). 

 

Apple Television is not what or how you watch.  It's all the other stuff that it's going to allow you to do...without any effort on your part. 

post #59 of 80
Originally Posted by grannysmith007 View Post

Or, you're still stuck to the couch watching that game and you say "Siri, call the closest Domino's Pizza for me" and then your TV talks to your iPhone via wifi or bluetooth and automatically dials it for you and you're still sitting on the couch having done nothing but talk.

 

Spectacular. You want to automate laziness. Steve Jobs said once that a television is what you use to turn your mind off. Making it the center of your house seems like the ultimate in giving up.

 

And because you have an Apple Television in your house that does apps with iOS, the video game console market just got eradicated.

 

But you can already do this, and they're not. Building hardware that is outdated yearly into a dumb, expensive panel isn't going to change anything.

 

That's what Siri will be doing for you in the not-too-distant future when she's the hub of your home as your television.

 

Sounds terrible (the television bit). I'd rather have a touchscreen wall panel in every room (replacing light switches) where I can physically do that. 

 

For a Siri-based (-supplemented) automation solution to work, you'd need a PA system in every room of your house, plus you'd be replacing every single appliance in your kitchen, mud room, etc… 

 

I want intelligent houses more than anyone I know. It's 20-freaking-12; we were supposed to have this decades ago… but there's no way to do it without buying all new crap.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/16/12 at 11:00am

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.

 

NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.

 

Golf? Forget about it.

 

PBS News Hour? A day late.

 

Video Podcasts? Suck

 

YouTube? Google. So it automatically blows, enough said.

 

Formula One? Forget it.

 

Tennis...same.

 

Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!

 

Online viewing really sucks!

I've actually been pretty happy with cutting the cord (going on two years now). The Olympics did suck.

 I get a good HD over-the-air signal, so I get most of the major sports/programs. I don't really miss ESPN as much as I thought I would. Major golf tournaments almost always stream for free through iPad/iPhone apps. I love Netflix because it has great documentaries. I have a Roku - chose it over Apple TV - because I also can get Hulu Plus and Amazon on Demand. It also has good news networks, etc.

I find that I actually watch more and higher-quality TV now than I did when I paid endless bills to cable. 

 If I really want to see something that I can't get (like a game on ESPN), then I go to a sports bar. I could even buy a round for everyone around me and still come out ahead of where I was when paying for cable.

 I wish Apple would find a way to work directly with the content providers. I'd pay for ala carte programming if the price is right.

post #61 of 80

This is the first Apple TV rumor I've heard in a couple of years that managed to pass the bullshit test.

post #62 of 80

Just make every cable channel an APP and be done with it already.

post #63 of 80
Originally Posted by Waverunnr View Post
Just make every cable channel an APP and be done with it already.

 

Nowhere near good enough. That's a Microsoft solution.

 

The Google solution would be to have popup ads in addition to the ads during the show's breaks. And then popup ads on those ads.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #64 of 80

The situation with cable and satellite boxes in this country is borderline criminal, IMO - and an obstacle to innovation and free choice for consumers.

 

I've been waiting for years to see simple, universal, cost-effective solutions in the free market to record, store and view TV shows. Despite the FCC mandating this like what, over 10 years ago, the cable and satellite companies have managed to keep a nearly complete stranglehold on this technology with their silly "purchase a cumbersome, noisy box with crap software to lease and pay an exorbitant monthly service fee just to effectively use our service" business model.

 

Yes, TIVO and CableCard have made some inroads, but not very successfully. Cable companies make you jump through hoops if you don't want one of their boxes, and it's not even possible anymore to own your own HD DVR for satellite service, as far as I know.

 

I've grown so disgusted by the situation that I've gone Over The Air-only, complemented by an Apple TV and a BluRay player, and am fairly happy with this nearly no-cost solution - but I'd still really like a DVR-type device just for local channels. What options are out there are too expensive and cumbersome for most people, although the technology obviously exists.

 

I'd love to see what Apple could do in this space. If the big telco's continue to lock them out, the DOJ should investigate (fat chance).

 

What would be perfect for me is an OTA-antenna or local cable "in the clear HD" DVR that plugs into the USB port on most modern TV's and stores content via Wi-Fi on synced Mac or PC. Sort of like the Apple TV and iTunes. No spinning hard drives making noise, taking up space, generating monthly fees, and overheating my home theater cabinet that way. It's not rocket science, why can't this be done?

post #65 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double0Diablo View Post

The situation with cable and satellite boxes in this country is borderline criminal, IMO - and an obstacle to innovation and free choice for consumers.

I've been waiting for years to see simple, universal, cost-effective solutions in the free market to record, store and view TV shows. Despite the FCC mandating this like what, over 10 years ago, the cable and satellite companies have managed to keep a nearly complete stranglehold on this technology with their silly "purchase a cumbersome, noisy box with crap software to lease and pay an exorbitant monthly service fee just to effectively use our service" business model.

Yes, TIVO and CableCard have made some inroads, but not very successfully. Cable companies make you jump through hoops if you don't want one of their boxes, and it's not even possible anymore to own your own HD DVR for satellite service, as far as I know.

I've grown so disgusted by the situation that I've gone Over The Air-only, complemented by an Apple TV and a BluRay player, and am fairly happy with this nearly no-cost solution - but I'd still really like a DVR-type device just for local channels. What options are out there are too expensive and cumbersome for most people, although the technology obviously exists.

I'd love to see what Apple could do in this space. If the big telco's continue to lock them out, the DOJ should investigate (fat chance).

What would be perfect for me is an OTA-antenna or local cable "in the clear HD" DVR that plugs into the USB port on most modern TV's and stores content via Wi-Fi on synced Mac or PC. Sort of like the Apple TV and iTunes. No spinning hard drives making noise, taking up space, generating monthly fees, and overheating my home theater cabinet that way. It's not rocket science, why can't this be done?

About the ota dvr, I think its just a question of volume. Major brands just dont want to enter that market. You justmake me taught that on an apple tv set, having an expansion SSD slot for the DVR would be a good idea.
post #66 of 80

as some one who works for a Cable Co. I can say that I do not know why any one would buy an STB... when new tech comes out you are  stuck with what you bought. (most STB's in peoples homes and only decode MPEG-2 video and only the very latest can decode MPEG-4). Same with Cable Modems... millions of End of Life DOCSIS 1 and 2 modems were deployed By Cable Companies in the past 10 years... they will still work but not faster than about 20mbps... if you bought one your are stuck with it... but if you rent one from the Cable Co. you can just get a new D3 modem and get the faster speeds.... (my company has raised the speeds of each tier and kept the price about the same about once a year as long as i've worked for them 10+ years) soon the "normal" speed will require a D3 modem.... and soon this will happen with video... to get more HD channels and more VOD, STB's will need to decode mp4 in a QAM and also in an IP streaming format... Apple could build a Tivo-like DVR that has a cablecard slot like a Tivo does that also has all the functionality of an Apple TV they could also add this tech to a Flat Pannel and make a smart TV, and I do not think that they have to do any thing more than submit the device to Cable Labs for testing (like Tivo did)... but if they are in "Talks" with Cable Companies you better believe that an apple STB will be a rental device from the MSO... like Comcast did with their new Pace X-1 box the STB becomes an internet appliance and has Apps for traffic and weather on it... Apple can do it better and some Cable Co could be willing to let them try to develop the apps (also this could be a 2 way device accessing the cloud (and your itunes library)  by a dedicated DOCSIS device inside the STB along with traditional VOD content from the Cable Co.)  and when Apple does this and then they have a hardware update next year you just have your cable company sent you a new one with all the new bells and whistles...

 

on a different note any one who rents a router from the Cable Co. is just Dumb... prices are so cheap that it pays for itself in a few months and when the .N routers become obsolete next year ;) you just go and buy the next gen one....

post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waverunnr View Post

Just make every cable channel an APP and be done with it already.

Do a quick search on who owns 'insert fav channel'... You might be shocked to know the answer... Often it's one of the major networks ... Or one of the cable giants ... Or some conglomeration of the two.

I was quite sad when I learned of this...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #68 of 80

IMO, for this idea to be successful (first let's just ignore the fact that Apple needs the Media companies to agree to support the ATV) Apple would probably have to build-in some DVR functionality.  That would mean adding a larger hard-drive...or one might say "taking a step backwards".

 

Then probably provide a dev package to allow reagional cable companies to develop thier own app...or just allow Apple to create an App for the regionals to work with.  Either way, regional cable companies are notoriously frugle.  So I can see how this would be a totally up-hill climb for Apple.  I really hope something like this comes to be, but I don't expect anything like this in the near future, meaning the next 2 years (maybe but very unlikely).  In my area, the sole cable company has been providing the absolute bare minimum of effort, just waiting for someone else to buy them out.  frikn' Charter.

 

As far as purchasing the ATV over renting the DVR.  We rent our DVR for (i think) $12 per month.  Which means I could buy 1.5 ATVs per year for the same cost.  Since I've owned cable (almost 8 years) we've almost annually had to replace the crappy DVR for a new crappy DVR.  At least if our DVR was the ATV, I would only have to replace it when the firmware no longer supports it...or when the feature set improves far beyond our current model.

post #69 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

So much for the cord cutters.

well, if you already own a cable box and the ATV, you could be cutting one cord at least.

post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?

you're assuming OnDemand content is actually provides content for every show currently airing...which it doesn't in my area.  Never used OnDemand, and never will.

DVR is just so much more customizable and eaiser to use on our Motorola MOXI.  The STB blows a hard drive annually and it's slower than a snail, but at least the software consistantly works.  Heck, for my OnDemand when I forget to set something to record...iTunes.  Granted i prefered it when you could rent TV but in a pinch the a-la-carte works.

post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by propaganda View Post

I still do not believe that the Apple TV as we know it is Apple's answer to mainstream television. Given their recent focus on display technology in their iDevices, I expect that they will still want to transfer this experience to TV viewers.

 

The "Apple TV" hobby is nothing more a Trojan Horse to pave the way for a full blown iTV with Apps, Siri, etc. Apple's plan is to quell the fears of the cable companies by showing them that their Apple TV is not a threat. Then they will organize and make deals for the Apple TV (as seen here) and then later introduce a wow iTV product and port the programming to the new device. 

Highly doubt this senario.  Big media has pulling content at a whim if they feel threatened at all.  Read the headlines recently?  This just happened.

post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Because you will have a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade it every year. If you haven't noticed, every TV manufacturer releases several new models a year. Somehow, it works out. If there is indeed an Apple TV, the hardware will be less important than the content and the ecosystem that goes along with it. And like it or not, a self contained TV is easier for most people to understand, and more tangible, than  black box you need to plug in to your TV, change the inputs to access, etc. Also, mobile CPUs/GPUs have reached a point where almost anything is possible. I don't see what they won't be able to do with an A15 chip in a TV, that will require yearly updates. This isn't 2007. The processing tech has matured greatly. The A5X handles the ultra-high resolution, beyond HDTV resolution iPad like butter. An A6 would be able to run a TV interface in its sleep. 

I agree that an All-in-one TV is a much better business model for Apple.  However, given Apple's hardware refresh cycle and average profit margins on HW (not to mention Apple's price structure), an expensive Apple-branded TV would make very little sense after the early adopters bought up the first runs.  I was a slightly early adopter to HDTV (boughy my 720p/1080i Panny Plasma in 2005, just months before 1080p became the standard...sigh) and it hasn't sufferd "screen burn" or "dimming" and keeps chugging away.  I plan on replacing it when it dies but it still looks just as good when I first bought it.  Apple wouldn't allow such a long replacement cycle and I don't think the general public would buy into it.

post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinneal View Post

As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well.

Apple doesn't sell the ATV in every country that Apple sells to.  I work 1/2 my year in China and nobody here has even heard or seen an ATV.

post #74 of 80
News is coming in now that indeed Apple is producing a full HDTV and it's already in production. Funny thing is, they are doing it almost exactly how I said they would previously on this thread, except instead of cable companies offering the tv's AT&T and Verizon are.
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Spectacular. You want to automate laziness. Steve Jobs said once that a television is what you use to turn your mind off. Making it the center of your house seems like the ultimate in giving up.

 

 

I'm picturing Wall-E.

 

"Try Blue... It's the new Red"

 

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abobrek View Post

News is coming in now that indeed Apple is producing a full HDTV and it's already in production. Funny thing is, they are doing it almost exactly how I said they would previously on this thread, except instead of cable companies offering the tv's AT&T and Verizon are.

hell, I suggested this years ago on an AI thread.  And that was about when ATT was the only provider of the iPhone.  ATT has their own STB and their own UVerse cable subscription.  Why not replace that with the ATV?  I wish i could find my early posts about this but I'm pretty shure it was right around the release of 2nd Gen ATV.

post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Apple doesn't sell the ATV in every country that Apple sells to.  I work 1/2 my year in China and nobody here has even heard or seen an ATV.

 

actually i'm in china (i'm not Chinese) and me n my few friends all have apple tvs and iPads in our home and most of us enjoy the airplay. if we wanna watch indian or english movies airplay is godsend for us (if you ever heard of pptv or youku)…

 

but i understand your point and all of my chinese friends have never heard of apple tv and they are shocked to see when i play movie from iPad to my HDTV.

 

i would love if apple releases Apple TV worldwide and gives us excess to all the U.S movies and tv shows plus any where else they launch this tv service.

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutykamu View Post

 

actually i'm in china (i'm not Chinese) and me n my few friends all have apple tvs and iPads in our home and most of us enjoy the airplay. if we wanna watch indian or english movies airplay is godsend for us (if you ever heard of pptv or youku)…

 

but i understand your point and all of my chinese friends have never heard of apple tv and they are shocked to see when i play movie from iPad to my HDTV.

 

i would love if apple releases Apple TV worldwide and gives us excess to all the U.S movies and tv shows plus any where else they launch this tv service.

yes, I was referring to Chinese people never have heard of the ATV.  It's not even on the Chinese Apple.com.  I think Apple's reason for not selling it in China are pretty obvious.  Nobody pays for content in China (not a fact, just an observed commonality).  I'm honestly shocked that Cable TV and movie theaters even exist still in China.  Not to mention that YouTube is forbidden, Netflix doesn't exist there either.  Since ATV is really just a consumption device and for Airplay mirroring, if you cut-out the consumption part, you only have the 1st gen ATV without iTunes.  I'm not a resident of China and don't have the Chinese edition of iTunes for my computer so i'm not user how they handles the music/movie/tv store there...but if it even exists i'm sure it's pretty limited.

 

One of my Chinese co-workers bought an iPad when the iPad2 was release.  He told me he wanted to return it because the apps were not free.  Just an example of how they think there.


Edited by antkm1 - 8/21/12 at 8:23am
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?

 

Well you often can't skip through ads with on demand shows.

 

philip

post #80 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

yes, I was referring to Chinese people never have heard of the ATV.  It's not even on the Chinese Apple.com.  I think Apple's reason for not selling it in China are pretty obvious.  Nobody pays for content in China (not a fact, just an observed commonality).  I'm honestly shocked that Cable TV and movie theaters even exist still in China.  Not to mention that YouTube is forbidden, Netflix doesn't exist there either.  Since ATV is really just a consumption device and for Airplay mirroring, if you cut-out the consumption part, you only have the 1st gen ATV without iTunes.  I'm not a resident of China and don't have the Chinese edition of iTunes for my computer so i'm not user how they handles the music/movie/tv store there...but if it even exists i'm sure it's pretty limited.

One of my Chinese co-workers bought an iPad when the iPad2 was release.  He told me he wanted to return it because the apps were not free.  Just an example of how they think there.

I totally agree with you. They don't sell content here online at all, they have youku , pptv and many other things which offer free movies and tv shows. There are some movies you can rent on youku even the English ones and they cost only $0.80
I've seen many people pirating apps as not many people like to pay but I have also seen many of my suppliers buying a lot of things from app store.

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple in talks with cable providers over set-top box that handles live TV